| 13 Mar 2024 |
 @joepie91:pixie.town | that seems like something that's unlikely to result in much useful, and more likely to result in endless arguing :) | 18:45:16 |
 tgunnoe | it's a good thing that other prospective sponsors or donars can look from the outside at the project and see some consistence and less last minute changes | 18:45:27 |
 delroth | do you imagine that "better policy" would (beyond any reasonable doubt) allow for Anduril as a sponsor? if not, then why wait for the "better policy" to be designed to say no to Anduril? | 18:45:35 |
| delroth | if your "better policy" accepts Anduril as a sponsor all you're saying is that you want a policy that ignores the hundreds of contributors that have deemed this unacceptable | 18:46:13 |
| delroth | * do you imagine that "better policy" would allow for Anduril as a sponsor? if not, then why wait for the "better policy" to be designed to say no to Anduril? | 18:47:14 |
| tgunnoe | In reply to @delroth:delroth.net
do you imagine that "better policy" would allow for Anduril as a sponsor? if not, then why wait for the "better policy" to be designed to say no to Anduril? are they an illegal entity? are they sactioned? those seem to be reasonable red flags to deny sponsorships, otherwise I've only heard hearsay about perceived damages | 18:47:45 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | that seems like a lot of words to roundabout-justify something that I'm pretty sure you're well aware is harmful | 18:48:39 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | you're free to have your own ethical boundaries of course, but I find it very strange to present them as if they are the "reasonable" option (as opposed to just the ones you prefer) | 18:49:25 |
| delroth | In reply to @ultranix:matrix.org
are they an illegal entity? are they sactioned? those seem to be reasonable red flags to deny sponsorships, otherwise I've only heard hearsay about perceived damages how is this relevant to the fact that a large chunk of the community does not want Anduril to be sponsored? | 18:49:33 |
| delroth | In reply to @ultranix:matrix.org
are they an illegal entity? are they sactioned? those seem to be reasonable red flags to deny sponsorships, otherwise I've only heard hearsay about perceived damages * how is this relevant to the fact that a large chunk of the community does not want Anduril to be sponsoring? | 18:49:43 |
 K. Werty | Anyway, I DO consider fighting against the (nearly complete) normalization of the military industrial complex to be constructive, so I respectfully disagree. | 18:50:00 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | I think the people having this conversation here broadly agree with you on the ethical front | 18:50:32 |
| K. Werty | * Anyway, I DO consider fighting against the (nearly complete) normalization of the military industrial complex to be constructive, so I respectfully disagree with the statement that calling it unacceptable is non-constructive. | 18:50:38 |
| tgunnoe | In reply to @joepie91:pixie.town
that seems like a lot of words to roundabout-justify something that I'm pretty sure you're well aware is harmful I'm not aware. I've heard that they have saved quite a lot of lives with their sensor towers. i havent seen any deaths contributed however, and I've asked multiple times where I can find that data | 18:50:45 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | and so a more helpful conversation would be what to do next | 18:50:55 |
| tgunnoe | but i dont think its even necessary to get into the particulars, its easy to see opinions exist both ways | 18:51:30 |
| delroth | frankly nobody here cares about convincing you of why they don't want Anduril to sponsor Nix* | 18:51:42 |
| delroth | and I'm not sure why you'd need to be convinced of it to accept the fact that, again, 100+ contributors do not want Anduril sponsoring Nix* | 18:52:03 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | like, the Foundation folks are not being super responsive here right now, so in practice complaining here is not likely to achieve what I assume is your goal of complaining to Foundation folks | 18:52:07 |
| K. Werty | * Anyway, I DO consider fighting against the (nearly complete) normalization of the military industrial complex to be constructive, so I respectfully disagree with the statement that calling it unacceptable is non-constructive. Although I do acknowledge that I said it in a possibly snarky way. | 18:52:25 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | even if I understand the desire to do so | 18:52:28 |
 patka | In reply to @joepie91:pixie.town
and so a more helpful conversation would be what to do next I have no idea to be honest. It's not like the foundation will do anything in this room. So good question. | 18:52:43 |
| delroth | * frankly nobody here cares about trying to convince you of why they don't want Anduril to sponsor Nix* | 18:52:57 |
| delroth | which means that any policy which does not include that fact into account is a bad policy | 18:53:06 |
| tgunnoe | In reply to @delroth:delroth.net
and I'm not sure why you'd need to be convinced of it to accept the fact that, again, 100+ contributors do not want Anduril sponsoring Nix* 100+ contributors to a petition, I dont know how many of those are actual contributors. and 100 out of how many people using nix? | 18:53:16 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | I mean, I'm hoping that Foundation folks will at least address the question of their legal obligations. it seems much preferable to sort that out informally here, as opposed to through a legal procedure | 18:53:32 |
| delroth | they represent > 25% of all contributions to nixpkgs since 2022, are you not reading the discussions before replying? | 18:53:50 |
| delroth | and that's within 24h, and only contributors who explicitly decided to take an action to sign the open letter | 18:54:27 |
 piegames | tgunnoe: this is currently a discussion by people who don't want Anduril as a sponsor about what to do with the situation. This is not the correct place to derail this into the same discussion about that you are personally in favor of Anduril | 18:54:27 |
| tgunnoe | so 75% did not sign you're saying? | 18:54:29 |
